Removing The Outlier - QBs

[Hoofbite]

Gotcha.

Rodgers still can't overcome a 2 score deficit. Because he won't, apparently, take any risks. I wonder if opposing coordinators know this and play him more aggressively in those scenarios.

I'd wager this is the case for most good QBs. Generally speaking, you get that far behind in one of 2 ways. QB isn't playing well and the offense struggles, or your defense is just completely useless and negates anything the offense can even muster. When QB's have bad games, who would expect them to win? When defenses have awful games, why would anyone say that it's a reflection of the QB's performance?

Hey A-Rod. Listen, hey. A-Rod, I wanna tell you something. Hey...hey, you knows those games where you don't play so well and you fall really behind. You know the games I'm talking about? Well, you hardly ever win those games.

What QB routinely overcomes 2-score deficits? Honest question. If Rodgers is "bad" at doing it, what QB is good?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I'd wager this is the case for most good QBs. Generally speaking, you get that far behind in one of 2 ways. QB isn't playing well and the offense struggles, or your defense is just completely useless and negates anything the offense can even muster. When QB's have bad games, who would expect them to win? When defenses have awful games, why would anyone say that it's a reflection of the QB's performance?



What QB routinely overcomes 2-score deficits? Honest question. If Rodgers is "bad" at doing it, what QB is good?

It's the fact Rodgers has NEVER won those games.

No qb wins with regularity in those situations. But 0-25 is 0-25.

And unlike other qbs when down two scores in the second half he seems to become more conservative not more risk averse.

 

[perrykemp]

It's the fact Rodgers has NEVER won those games.

No qb wins with regularity in those situations. But 0-25 is 0-25.

And unlike other qbs when down two scores in the second half he seems to become more conservative not more risk averse.

I agree that 0-25 is statistically significant. Hard to argue that.

What I think is <much> more speculative is the 'he is more risk adverse in the 2nd half' arguement.

For Rodger's career here are his interception counts by quarter:

Quarter 1: 8 Interception
Quarter 2: 13 Interceptions
Quarter 3: 16 Interceptions
Quarter 4: 19 interceptions​

Looking at the stats, it's difficult to deduce that Rodgers is more conservative and less risk averse in the second half, 4th quarter or anything else.

Rodgers throws 2.3x more interceptions in the 4th quarter than the 1st quarter. I don't see much basis for 'risk averse' in those numbers.

What <can be> more generally said is that for reasons that likely much more complex that surface statements like "Rodgers is risk averse in the 4th quarter" is it is undeniable that Rodgers isn't nearly as good in the 4th quarter as he is in the 1st quarter.

That stats indicate Rodgers is the greatest QB in the history of the NFL in the 1st quarter (109 QB rating) but just merely mortal in the 4th quarter (102 QB rating).

 

[BlindFaith]

I agree that 0-25 is statistically significant. Hard to argue that.

What I think is <much> more speculative is the 'he is more risk adverse in the 2nd half' arguement.

For Rodger's career here are his interception counts by quarter:

Quarter 1: 8 Interception
Quarter 2: 13 Interceptions
Quarter 3: 16 Interceptions
Quarter 4: 19 interceptions​

Looking at the stats, it's difficult to deduce that Rodgers is more conservative and less risk averse in the second half, 4th quarter or anything else.

Rodgers throws 2.3x more interceptions in the 4th quarter than the 1st quarter. I don't see much basis for 'risk averse' in those numbers.

What <can be> more generally said is that for reasons that likely much more complex that surface statements like "Rodgers is risk averse in the 4th quarter" is it is undeniable that Rodgers isn't nearly as good in the 4th quarter as he is in the 1st quarter.

That stats indicate Rodgers is the greatest QB in the history of the NFL in the 1st quarter (109 QB rating) but just merely mortal in the 4th quarter (102 QB rating).

Great post. Where do you get the per quarter stats?

 

[burmafrd]

Great post. Where do you get the per quarter stats?

yeah- would like to see all the top QBs as regards Picks per quarter. Might be very interesting.

 

[perrykemp]

Great post. Where do you get the per quarter stats?

Here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RodgAa00/splits//

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I agree that 0-25 is statistically significant. Hard to argue that.

What I think is <much> more speculative is the 'he is more risk adverse in the 2nd half' arguement.

For Rodger's career here are his interception counts by quarter:

Quarter 1: 8 Interception
Quarter 2: 13 Interceptions
Quarter 3: 16 Interceptions
Quarter 4: 19 interceptions​

Looking at the stats, it's difficult to deduce that Rodgers is more conservative and less risk averse in the second half, 4th quarter or anything else.

Rodgers throws 2.3x more interceptions in the 4th quarter than the 1st quarter. I don't see much basis for 'risk averse' in those numbers.

What <can be> more generally said is that for reasons that likely much more complex that surface statements like "Rodgers is risk averse in the 4th quarter" is it is undeniable that Rodgers isn't nearly as good in the 4th quarter as he is in the 1st quarter.

That stats indicate Rodgers is the greatest QB in the history of the NFL in the 1st quarter (109 QB rating) but just merely mortal in the 4th quarter (102 QB rating).

Sorry no dice. The total number of interceptions isn't really important. It is the rate at which one throws interceptions in different scenarios that is important. Please see the below. I'd like to see @BlindFaith talk this away...

Interceptions are often (even largely) a product of completely rational risk-taking by desperate quarterbacks. A logical implication of this is that if a quarterback is too conservative, he can throw too few interceptions, which can be just as bad as throwing too many.

Despite his various successes, it’s possible Rodgers fits this description of an overly conservative quarterback. For example, with his team down by two or more scores (9+ points) he has thrown only three interceptions out of 354 passes attempted (0.8 percent) in his career. This is typically when quarterbacks throw the most INTs, because they’re trying to get their teams back into the game, and high-risk strategies often give them the best chance to win. Overall, quarterbacks throw interceptions about 3.5 percent of the time on average in those situations, with even most great quarterbacks breaking 3.0 percent. Peyton Manning, for example, has averaged 3.1 percent, Drew Brees has averaged 3.3 percent, and even Tom Brady has thrown 2.3 percent (slightly above his career average).5

Being insufficiently willing to gamble even when circumstances are dire can be good for a QB’s stats, while bad for his team. And there’s evidence of this in Rodgers’s record as well: He has only engineered six fourth-quarter comebacks in his career — good for 149th all time (Russell Wilson already has eight).

There’s nothing wrong with giving your team the lead and then keeping it.6But Rodgers has averaged one fourth-quarter comeback every 14.5 games. This is staggeringly low, even for a player whose team isn’t behind that often. Brady has played for an even more consistently good team and has a fourth-quarter comeback once every 6.2 games. Both brothers Manning have averaged one every six games, Ben Roethlisberger has one every 6.2, Drew Brees and Joe Flacco have one about every eight. Favre (surprisingly) had one only every 9.9 games.

Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ayers-and-gambling-problems-in-the-nfc-north/

Rodgers simply does not take enough risk when his team is down two scores. LIkely because he loves his stats too much. Something that has been whispered about a lot.

 

[perrykemp]

Rodgers simply does not take enough risk when his team is down two scores. LIkely because he loves his stats too much. Something that has been whispered about a lot.

I dunno.

Rodgers has thrown 26 of his career 57 interceptions when trailing. That's nearly half of them. Considering how little Rodgers has trailed in his career it's <really> hard to say he isn't taking chances and playing aggressively when he is playing from behind.

Again, I don't think anybody would argue that Rodgers definitely doesn't play as well when he is trailing (at any point during the game). All I would say is the statistics really show no evidence of him playing conservative in a trailing position -- I would say it's the opposite.

If Rodger's is in love with his stats so much, why is he throwing so many interceptions when trailing? It's difficult to come to any other conclusion than he is playing more aggressively to bring his team back from deficits in those situations. How else do you explain his much higher interception rate when trailing?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I dunno.

Rodgers has thrown 26 of his career 57 interceptions when trailing. That's nearly half of them. Considering how little Rodgers has trailed in his career it's <really> hard to say he isn't taking chances and playing aggressively when he is playing from behind.

Again, I don't think anybody would argue that Rodgers definitely doesn't play as well when he is trailing (at any point during the game). All I would say is the statistics really show no evidence of him playing conservative in a trailing position -- I would say it's the opposite.

If Rodger's is in love with his stats so much, why is he throwing so many interceptions when trailing? It's difficult to come to any other conclusion than he is playing more aggressively to bring his team back from deficits in those situations. How else do you explain his much higher interception rate when trailing?

How in the world can you say it's the opposite?

Like literally every rate stat I've shown you shows that he isn't being as risk seeking as he should be when down 2 scores.

If the raw statistics for him verses other great qbs isn't enough then nothing will be.

I mean read my last post again. It's smack you in the face compelling.

You say half his ints happen when trailing. Go back and check how many happen when down two scores.

 

[BlindFaith]

Sorry no dice. The total number of interceptions isn't really important. It is the rate at which one throws interceptions in different scenarios that is important. Please see the below. I'd like to see @BlindFaith talk this away...



Rodgers simply does not take enough risk when his team is down two scores. LIkely because he loves his stats too much. Something that has been whispered about a lot.

Did you write that article?

 

[Hoofbite]

It's the fact Rodgers has NEVER won those games.

No qb wins with regularity in those situations. But 0-25 is 0-25.

And unlike other qbs when down two scores in the second half he seems to become more conservative not more risk averse.

He has never won a game when trailing by 9 points or more?

 

[perrykemp]

Like literally every rate stat I've shown you shows that he isn't being as risk seeking as he should be when down 2 scores.

Turok, I am not arguing that Aaron Rodger's 4th stats and his stats when trailing aren't nearly as good as his stats from the 1st quarter or when leading. There are plenty of facts that bear that out. The stats don't lie in that regard.

Where you and I disagree is whether there have been any facts that I've seen here published in this thread that proove Rodgers avoids risk when down by more than scores. If there have been, I haven't seen them.

To me, "Rodgers avoids risk because he love his stats too much" just doesn't seem to have any real basis too it. It's based completely in opinion. As an argument, it's the same neighborhood as the "Romo throws too many interceptions when the chips are down" line of thinking."

I'll be honest, I'm not sure that the "Aaron Rodgers avoids risks when he knows his team is unlikely to win (ie trailing by 9+ points)" doesn't have some truth to it. Frankly, that was my very loose opinion before I started digging into the stats when participating this thread. I just haven't found anything in the stats that comes anywhere close to providing a shred of evidence to back up that thesis.

 

[BlindFaith]

How in the world can you say it's the opposite?

Like literally every rate stat I've shown you shows that he isn't being as risk seeking as he should be when down 2 scores.

If the raw statistics for him verses other great qbs isn't enough then nothing will be.

I mean read my last post again. It's smack you in the face compelling.

You say half his ints happen when trailing. Go back and check how many happen when down two scores.

http://i1079.***BLOCKED***/albums/w506/blindfaith69/trailing.png

I'm not going to try and find the stat breakdown for all these QBs based on this 9+ points at some point in the second half. If you want to support that side, then you provide the data. And all of the data I requested in my previous post.

What I provided here is a list of the same QBs being discussed. Showing what their stats are when trailing and when trailing with less than 4 minutes to go.

TD%, Int% and 1D% (first down) are based on Attempts.

Rodgers hs the highest Passer Rating.
Rodgers has the highest yards per attempt when trailing. 4th when trailing with less than 4 minutes to play.
Rodgers is second with 1D% per attempt when trailing.
Rodgers does have the lowest Int% when trailing. But not dramatically lower. There are a handful of QBs that do have quite a bit higher Int% when trailing with less than 4 min. But Romo is second lowest there, so anything you say about Rodgers you would need to apply to Romo.
Rodgers also has 10 Rushing TDs. Highest by far.

So that should be the starting point of this discussion.

Why the team hasn't won a game in this obscure situation you brought up remains unknown at this point. Too much situational data is lacking.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

http://i1079.***BLOCKED***/albums/w506/blindfaith69/trailing.png

I'm not going to try and find the stat breakdown for all these QBs based on this 9+ points at some point in the second half. If you want to support that side, then you provide the data. And all of the data I requested in my previous post.

What I provided here is a list of the same QBs being discussed. Showing what their stats are when trailing and when trailing with less than 4 minutes to go.

TD%, Int% and 1D% (first down) are based on Attempts.

Rodgers hs the highest Passer Rating.
Rodgers has the highest yards per attempt when trailing. 4th when trailing with less than 4 minutes to play.
Rodgers is second with 1D% per attempt when trailing.
Rodgers does have the lowest Int% when trailing. But not dramatically lower. There are a handful of QBs that do have quite a bit higher Int% when trailing with less than 4 min. But Romo is second lowest there, so anything you say about Rodgers you would need to apply to Romo.
Rodgers also has 10 Rushing TDs. Highest by far.

So that should be the starting point of this discussion.

Why the team hasn't won a game in this obscure situation you brought up remains unknown at this point. Too much situational data is lacking.

Training by 2 scores in the second half is some obscure situation?

 

[perrykemp]

Training by 2 scores in the second half is some obscure situation?

Great question. Where does it rank in the pantheon of stats to measure QB performance?

 

[BlindFaith]

Training by 2 scores in the second half is some obscure situation?

It is when you don't provide any context to it. Your example is trailing by 9+ points at some point in the second half. That doesn't mean just two scores. That could be 6 scores. And at what point in the second half? Two minutes to go? The beginning of the second half?

Does it account for if the QB actually ever tied the point differential only to have the defense give up another score to lose the game?

It's not that hard to see why your obscure situation is so full of unknowns that it makes it useless.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Great question. Where does it rank in the pantheon of stats to measure QB performance?

It is the discussion at hand. Rodgers is a great qb. If you don't want to discuss his shortcomings when down more than a score please feel free to not discuss it.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It is when you don't provide any context to it. Your example is trailing by 9+ points at some point in the second half. That doesn't mean just two scores. That could be 6 scores. And at what point in the second half? Two minutes to go? The beginning of the second half?

Does it account for if the QB actually ever tied the point differential only to have the defense give up another score to lose the game?

It's not that hard to see why your obscure situation is so full of unknowns that it makes it useless.

It is the same statistic for everyone. Rodgers is 0-25 in said situations.

 

[perrykemp]

It is the discussion at hand. Rodgers is a great qb. If you don't want to discuss his shortcomings when down more than a score please feel free to not discuss it.

Toruk:

I've fully agreed that 0-25 is statistically significant.

I've fully agreed that Rodger's 4th quarter performance is much worse than his performance in any other quarter.

I have no problems discussing his shortcomings.

Having said that, I am still looking for some sort of metrics, trend, or otherwise that indicates "Rodgers avoids risk because he love his stats too much".

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Toruk:

I've fully agreed that 0-25 is statistically significant.

I've fully agreed that Rodger's 4th quarter performance is much worse than his performance in any other quarter.

I have no problems discussing his shortcomings.

Having said that, I am still looking for some sort of metrics, trend, or otherwise that indicates "Rodgers avoids risk because he love his stats too much".

I speculated that Rodgers loves his stats a bit too much. It's been mentioned before. I am wondering if that is the "cause" to him playing so conservatively...to an apparent detrimental effect.

Nobody can argue he doesn't become ultra conservative when down big.